The Notitia
Dignitatum is an enigmatic document that is not only
the earliest written evidence for fifth-century Britain,
but also the only documented evidence of the term LitorisSaxonici (Saxon Shore). Though we
speak mostly of the Notitia Dignitatum, the real title of
this manuscript is Notitia omnium Dignitatum et
administrationum tam civilium quam militarum, an
official list of civil and military offices in the
western empire, which was of service to the primicerius
notariorum occidentis (imperial records office of the
West), which kept records of all imperial administrative
affairs. In fact this document consists of a Notitia
Dignitatum Occidentis (Register of Offices in
the West), as there is an eastern half as well, the
Notitia Dignitatum Orientis.

The
earliest copy of this document known to us dates from the
11th century, a manuscript known as the Codex
Spirensis, now lost. This (incomplete) survey by the
administrative bureaucracy included details of finances,
mints, industries and military commands throughout the
empire. Other forms of this document may have existed
before or after this one, but this copy seems to have
been made for a specific purpose (below), ending up in
Ravenna, where it was used by the Carolingians after 800
as a blueprint for the governing of a Roman
empire.

The Codex
Spirensis was copied as well, and it is one of these
later copies that form the basis of our knowledge of the
Late Roman Army. Because of this, we cannot be sure of
the correctness of the text, but even less of the
drawings, which symbolize the commands of the civil and
military functionaries. The medieval scribes may have
failed to understand the symbolisms, and the evidence of
e.g. the colour of the shields at face value may be
misleading. As we can see from the images reprensenting
several commands (below), this is clear enough - the
scroll in the top left corner has been turned into a
book, and the cities do not exactly represent Late Roman
architecture. All images and maps are from the MS Canon
Misc. 378.

Origin
and Date

We
cant say with complete certainty when exactly this
list was drawn up or altered, with the obsolete items
sometimes retained and sometimes not. There probably
never was a time when the Notitia was completely
up to date in all sections. Suggestions vary from around
390 to 425, though the truth may lie somewhere
in-between. Most scholars though connect the Notitia with
Stilicho. The clue to this connection stems from the form
in which the Notitia still exists. The clue is
that the Notitia is not one single document, nor
two separate ones, but consists of two separate halves
under a unified government. Therefore, the document must
have been drawn up for the specific purposes of one ruler
who had in mind to govern both halves separately.

This
description would fit Stilicho very well, who after the
death of Arcadius in 408 had planned to extend his
influence over the young Theodosius II. But if we look at
the information for the eastern part, none of that would
have to date later than 395, which would make it rather
outdated for a document (even a version) freshly drawn up
in 408. J.C. Mann proposed that the time that would fit
this problem best is the usurpation of Eugenius in 394,
after which a specific version of the Notitia
had to be drawn up [Manns document A]. The clue
seems to be that the Notitia contains a
Prefecture of Illyricum that is subject to the Eastern
emperor in Constantinople. This becomes logical if one
takes into account that the usurper Eugenius was in
control of Gaul and Italy, which means that the former
diocese of Italy, Illyricum and Africa had been split up, with
only Italy under the control of Eugenius.

Illyricum,
now the base for the reconquest of the west by the
eastern armies of Theodosius I, received its first magister
militium per Illyricum, a further clue to the
specific use for which this version was drawn up.
Furthermore, the lists of the eastern forces a still very
neat and precise (although some clutter
occurs which signifies that is was drawn up in haste),
which suggests that they date from before the very fierce
and bloody battle of the Frigidus in 394, and that the Notitia
came to Milan with the victorious Theodosius later that
year. This seems to be confirmed by the fact that the
lists show that only the magister per Orientem was left
behind by Theodosius, and that the staffs for the other
had to be improvised when the armies returned to the East
in 395. No eastern regiments can be shown to have been
raised after that year

After
Theodosius died in January 395, the primicerius
notariorum, holder of the list, suddenly fell under
Stilicho, who took command in the West on behalf of the
very young Honorius. At this point, a second volume
[Manns document B ] needed to be drawn up,
replacing the split of Italy and Illyricum with a
reunified command and being amended as was necessary
later on. [A] was subsequently stored in Milan or
Ravenna, as it was a document that was drawn up solely
for the reconquest, and was outdated after that and never
changed until 408. Possible eastern versions that may
have existed (of course the governments of Arcadius and
Theodosius II had their own Notitia) before or
after that time in Constantinople have not survived. As
it was Stilicho and his staff who took control of the
functions listed in the Notitia, such as the primicerius,
the leading officials (princeps, comites
and duces), it was probably Stilicho who created
in 395 the post of the Comes Britanniarum, the
Count of the Britains. The [B] was updated around 400, as
the lists reflect the strengthening of the western
commands before the great invasions (Alaric, Radagais) in
401 and after.

In
408, when Stilicho turned his attentions eastwards, [A]
was changed again, with only the military command
surviving in full, whereas the rest was immensely
summarized. But Stilicho died that year, which might
account for the fact that it was not updated at all.
However, [B] was certainly updated after 408, or at least
chapter 7 (Occ. VII). Since the post of the comes
Hispaniae, which is known only after 420, was neatly
added in-between earlier commands, it stands to reason
that the latest emendations were made between 420 and
428, when the office of magister equitum per Gallias
was revived.

We
should keep in mind that by far not all chapters of the Notitia
date from the same year. As we have seen, chapter 7 was
updated last, while chapters 5 and 6 have not kept the
pace. The Index and chapter 42 may date back to
408, the latter maybe because it contains no cavalry
units, the elite of the Late Roman army. Others, such as
the commands of Britain and Spain are likely to predate
Constantine III, as the units listed are unlikely to have
survived the upheavals of the first decade of the fifth
century.

After
428, the Notitia probably gathered dust in a
pigeon-hole in the office of the magister
pededitum praesentalis, a post that grew in
political significance under Theodoric in the sixth
century, until the Carolingians took the city. They
resurrected the Roman empire under Charlemagne, who
needed the Notitia as a document as a blueprint
for a specifically Roman empire, which might account for
its survival in the German Codex Spirensis.

It
is still a matter of debate when exactly the Notitia
Dignitatum document was drawn up in the first place,
how long it was updated for and at what time, especially
in relation to Britain, the details ceased to be
up-to-date. The anachronistic look of the units on the
Wall has raised the suspicion by many researchers that at
least the military details were derelict after 367 (the
opinion that the Wall was deserted because of the data in
the Notitia have been refuted by archaeology),
or at least not updated. This author, following Hoffmann,
thinks otherwise.

It
seems even more unlikely that the Roman administration in
Britain survived the British revolt against the usurper
Constantine III of about 410, as probably indicated by
the account of Zosimus. Even when we hold on to the
interpretation that the British did not expel all Roman
officials, we should envision that at least those from
the continent and those holding to Constantine III did in
fact leave, thereby at least severely crippling the
administrative organisation. We cant be sure how
(if at all) effected the military organisation, but it
seems relatively sure nowadays that the military did not
leave wholesale, as claimed by some classical and early
medieval authors. Though several commanders could have
been left behind by Constantine III, we have no means of
finding out which commands as mentioned in the Notitia
retained even a shadow of their organisation. This is
hampered even more by the loss of the western sections,
which makes it hard to even check which forts were held
in the late fourth century. For the remainder, the Notitia
remains a most helpful document in helping the
archaeologists determine which forts were manned up to
400 and after and which subsequently may have survived as
private strongholds or civilian settlements.